Coming up with tough questions for ArbCom candidates

[Captain Occam]

Unfortunately, I think that what I suggested in this thread isn’t going to be possible. When I suggested having a blog post with criticism of all the ArbCom candidates, it was under the assumption that there were only going to be 13 or so of them, and I don’t think doing this is feasible for all 26. But EricBarbour and I had another idea related to this that I think is more feasible, and will be just as effective.

I’d like to come up with a set of difficult questions to ask the candidates on their Q&A pages, challenging them to explain some of the bad decisions they’ve made. Almost all of the questions currently being asked to the candidates are just boilerplate stuff, and nobody’s challenging them to explain why they should be trusted in a position of power after having shown major lapses of judgment in the past. This is something they ought to explain before they’re trusted with arbship, and the arbitrators’ Q&A pages will probably get at least as much attention from voters as a blog post would. (Although I’m not averse to having a blog post about this also, as long as it’s in addition to asking the candidates these questions directly, not instead of it.)

I’ve come up with questions for five candidates who I think need to explain certain things before they can be trusted as arbitrators. There probably are things like this about most of the candidates, so in this thread I’d like the WO community’s help with one other task: coming up with questions like this for as many of the candidates as possible.

Here are the five I’ve come up with to start with.

For Bwilkins:

In comments like this one (“may you rot in the hell that is eternal block”), you’ve displayed a very combative and vindictive attitude towards some users. Can you explain why you believe that is an acceptable attitude for an arbitrator to have?

For David Gerard:

One of the more controversial decisions you’ve made was to ban the IP ranges used by Judd Bagley and Overstock.com. The explanation you provided to The Register was that they had been spamming Wikipedia, but you declined to explain why you banned them more than a year after the spamming occurred. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of why you banned them when you did?

For Kww:

Prior to becoming an admin, you had three failed RFAs 1 2 3 in which others opposed you becoming an admin because you were viewed as a combative partisan in Wikipedia’s disputes over notability, particularly your statement that editors who disagreed with your perspective should be treated "as vandals, as opposed to editors”. Two questions related to this:

1: Have your viewpoints changed since then? If so, how?
2: Due to your prior involvement in this matter, would you recuse from any arbitration case involving disputes over notability?

For RegentsPark:

You were involved in the dispute which led to the 2010 race and intelligence arbitration case. You evidently feel very strongly about that case, as on your Q&A page for your candidacy last year you spontaneously brought it up three times, although no one had asked you about it. However, both last year and this year, the only topic areas in which you said you would recuse are Tree shaping and Burma/Myanmar. As an arbitrator, would you recuse from the race and intelligence case based on your past involvement in that dispute?

For Roger Davies: (This question has a first and second part. The second part varies depending on how he answers the first part.)

1: In comments such as the one here, you were the arbitrator most strongly opposed to taking any action about Mathsci’s conduct each of the several times it came before ArbCom in July through December 2012. However, when his conduct came before ArbCom again in September and October 2013, you reversed your earlier position and voted in favor of the mutual interaction bans and then the site-ban. Do you feel your earlier opposition to these remedies was a mistake?

2A: If the answer to question 1 is “yes”: What do you feel you should have done differently in your handling of this issue?

2B: If the answer to question 1 is “no”: How do you respond to the criticism that by discouraging the other arbitrators from addressing this issue for the first year it was before ArbCom, you unnecessarily prolonged it when it could have been resolved much more quickly?

Can anyone suggest questions like these for any of the other candidates? (Or for the five that I covered, if I missed anything important about them?)

[Bottled_Spider]

The most apposite questions that can be asked of those five people is:

1: As your election to the Arbcom will almost certainly result in not only a continuation of the Wikipedia status quo but a dramatic increase in the kind of stupidity and despair that makes a laughing stock of the whole project, can you guarantee that your period of tenure will result in me (and others, of course) being provided with some really major entertainment 'n' chortles?

2: Jimbo. A turd that won't flush? Discuss.

Honestly, it's the only way.

[SB_Johnny]

I hereby nominate Bottled_Spider to be in charge of writing the Wikipediocratic Party platform.

[Anroth]

Someone should ask gerard why the two faced rat bastard is happy to scream blp when it suits him, then defend his friends when they get banned for posting outing info on their blogs. ALthough as I recall doesnt he have form for that? Or am I confusing him with another wmuk insider with tools and no morals?

[Randy from Boise]

Someone should ask gerard why the two faced rat bastard is happy to scream blp when it suits him, then defend his friends when they get banned for posting outing info on their blogs. ALthough as I recall doesnt he have form for that? Or am I confusing him with another wmuk insider with tools and no morals?

I'll tell ya why: politics.

That is all.

RfB

[EricBarbour]

I'll have to think about this. Too many people to look at.

But there's one question I'd like to ask Gerard:
Sir, is the administrator known as "Maxim" one of your sockpuppets?

And I'd like to ask Kww this:
Sir, did the Aruba Tourist Board or some other agency compensate you for the hundreds of edits you made to the Wikipedia articles about Natalee Holloway and Joran van der Sloot? If you were paid, why did you not declare your COI at the time?

[Captain Occam]

Someone should ask gerard why the two faced rat bastard is happy to scream blp when it suits him, then defend his friends when they get banned for posting outing info on their blogs.

Can you provide diffs of both those things? For all of these questions, I think it's important to have a link to what the candidates did and said that you want to confront them about, so other voters can see the bad decisions for themselves.

I'll have to think about this. Too many people to look at.

We don’t have to come up with all of the questions we’re going to ask before someone starts asking them. I think these questions will have more of an impact if they get posted on the candidates’ Q&A pages before the voting starts, and then we can ask more of them later if someone comes up with additional questions during the voting period.

[SB_Johnny]

And I'd like to ask Kww this:
Sir, did the Aruba Tourist Board or some other agency compensate you for the hundreds of edits you made to the Wikipedia articles about Natalee Holloway and Joran van der Sloot? If you were paid, why did you not declare your COI at the time?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =582411283

[EricBarbour]

And why did he post it on JN's talkpage, and not on the election page?

And why DID he spend hundreds of hours editing the Holloway and van der Sloot articles, in close cooperation with his friend Gary "Wehwalt" Greenbaum? Was Greenbaum compensated for his work on the articles, and Kww simply assisted him as a "meatpuppet"?

[Captain Occam]

It's too bad Wer900 hasn't been online here recently, because I'll bet he could come up with some great questions that Beeblebrox ought to be asked.

I'd PM him, but I suspect he won't see it in time. If anyone's in contact with him elsewhere, such as on IRC, I think it would be worth letting him know about this thread.

[Zoloft]

It's too bad Wer900 hasn't been online here recently, because I'll bet he could come up with some great questions that Beeblebrox ought to be asked.

I'd PM him, but I suspect he won't see it in time. If anyone's in contact with him elsewhere, such as on IRC, I think it would be worth letting him know about this thread.

Right next to the 'PM' button is an 'EMAIL' button. It's magic.

[Captain Occam]

Right next to the 'PM' button is an 'EMAIL' button. It's magic.

Huh, I wasn't aware anyone ever used that feature. But if they do, I suppose it's worth trying, so thanks for the idea.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Do you agree with Arbcom's handling of the case Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds? Please comment on any of these aspects:

(1) Was there in fact any ongoing dispute with Ironholds and Kiefer.Wolfowitz, and had the community exhausted all other options of dispute resolution?

(2) Per Arbcom's rules, Kiefer.Wolfowitz added Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) and "recused" arbitrator Worm That Turned (T-H-L) as parties to the case. All three were removed by Arbcom's clerks. Nonetheless, Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned were allowed to submit evidence having nothing to do with Ironholds. Kiefer.Wolfowitz was banned from participating in the evidence phase, after he had added evidence on vandalism by Ironholds (which was later cited by the Arbcom desysoping of Ironholds) and had referred to Demiurge1000's block for dishonesty. A former arbitrator also blocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz for complaining about Arbcom's failures to protect children.

In summary, did Arbcom respect the case's announced scope, fairness, or its own procedures?

(3) In the finding of fact's citations of incivility and personal attacks cited, was Kiefer.Wolfowitz only retaliating to prior violations of WP:Civility (T-H-L) and WP:NPA (T-H-L) by other editors (usually administrators), which received not even warnings, as Kiefer.Wolfowitz complained? Should civility and NPA be enforced only against non-administrators who retaliate against prior NPAs and civility violations?

(4) Should Arbcom have considered or adopted a topic-ban, as suggested by Kiefer.Wolfowitz, rather than imposed the indefinite ban (with 12 months suggested as the first appeal date)? Were this ban and finding of fact relevant to the case, as accepted by Arbcom and announced to the community?

[Randy from Boise]

Do you agree with Arbcom's handling of the case Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds? Please comment on any of these aspects:

(1) Was there in fact any ongoing dispute with Ironholds and Kiefer.Wolfowitz, and had the community exhausted all other options of dispute resolution?

(2) Per Arbcom's rules, Kiefer.Wolfowitz added Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) and "recused" arbitrator Worm That Turned (T-H-L) as parties to the case. All three were removed by Arbcom's clerks. Nonetheless, Demiurge1000 and Worm That Turned were allowed to submit evidence having nothing to do with Ironholds. Kiefer.Wolfowitz was banned from participating in the evidence phase, after he had added evidence on vandalism by Ironholds (which was later cited by the Arbcom desysoping of Ironholds) and had referred to Demiurge1000's block for dishonesty. A former arbitrator also blocked Kiefer.Wolfowitz for complaining about Arbcom's failures to protect children.

In summary, did Arbcom respect the case's announced scope, fairness, or its own procedures?

(3) In the finding of fact's citations of incivility and personal attacks cited, was Kiefer.Wolfowitz only retaliating to prior violations of WP:Civility (T-H-L) and WP:NPA (T-H-L) by other editors (usually administrators), which received not even warnings, as Kiefer.Wolfowitz complained? Should civility and NPA be enforced only against non-administrators who retaliate against prior NPAs and civility violations?

(4) Should Arbcom have considered or adopted a topic-ban, as suggested by Kiefer.Wolfowitz, rather than imposed the indefinite ban (with 12 months suggested as the first appeal date)? Were this ban and finding of fact relevant to the case, as accepted by Arbcom and announced to the community?

KW, I'm not sure why you're having difficulty with this. Any set of randomly-chosen or carefully selected candidates from this year's crop of aspirants would have decided your judicial lynching in the same manner as the current ArbCom. A line that should not have been crossed was crossed by you with respect to intimations of wrongdoing without sufficient evidence presented of such wrongdoing having taken place.

You went past the "cool it," "fucking cool it," and "seriously, fucking cool it" flags and out came the hanging rope. ArbCom bringing Ironholds into play at all was nothing but a pretext to take you out. That was the one agenda item of the case, as we all know.

It would be as petty and pathetic as Sceptre's badgering questions to bring this stuff up in the current election.

You serve your year, you say "sorry, I fucked up and it won't happen again," and then you get back to work. Alternatively, you give WP the finger and get ultra-aggressive as a critic off-wiki. Either of those are plausible scenarios.

best,


tim

[Anroth]

Third option, sock.

As for Gerard, diffs not really needed. Just look at how he acted over Bradley Manning, and his current badgering of arbs over his chum being banned for outing. He only cares about living people when there is something in it for him, the slimy misbegotten wretch that he is.

If you want more background look back to when he had more power years ago, especially some of the ex arbs talkpages and mailing lists if you have access. Completely amoral twunt.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

... as petty and pathetic as Sceptre's badgering questions to bring this stuff up in the current election.

Link(s), please.

[Captain Occam]

Here are a few more questions based on other people’s suggestions.

This question would be for Seraphimblade, based on a suggestion by Poetlister:

In response to a question (in an e-mail) about whether you would make an edit suggested to you by a banned sockpuppeteer, you replied that "if someone approaches me with a concern, and it appears legitimate, I couldn't care less who they are." Under other circumstances, such as here, arbitrators have taken the perspective that being influenced by topic-banned or site-banned editors is a sanctionable offense, even if the edits themselves are not disruptive. Do you disagree with this perspective?

My comments about this: Seraphimblade’s comment in that e-mail seems consistent with what this part of the banning policy says: “Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.” In my opinion, the potential issue with his comment is that it’s the exact opposite of the perspective that Roger Davies has encouraged ArbCom to take with respect to everything involving Mathsci or the race and intelligence topic. Either Seraphimblade is wrong about this, or Roger Davies is wrong. I’m more inclined to favor Seraphimblade’s perspective, but he should be prepared to defend his perspective about this, especially in an election where Roger Davies is also running.

Wer900 also gave me some suggestions about questions for Beelbebrox. It was his preference that the questions obliquely reference Beeblebrox’s mistakes, rather than confront him about them directly.

What do you think is the proper role of an administrator (and of the entire administrative corps) on Wikipedia? In which ways have you (and the administrator corps) met these ideals, and in which ways have you (and the administrator corps) fallen short? What efforts have you and the body of administrators as a whole made to resolve your shortcomings?

As an Arbitrator, you will deal with many cases of individuals being unfairly banned or sanctioned at venues like the Administrators' Noticeboard, the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, or by administrators acting individually or in concert with other users. How would you redress the grievances of such users and create deterrents to prevent such harassment from happening in the future?

Private information is a fact of life for any Arbitrator. Which types of information should go into the various classification types (revdelete, oversighted, email-only) and how has the Arbitration Committee, along with others with the power to hide information, met your classification criteria?

In addition to the questions for Beeblebrox, Wer900 suggested one more question about David Gerard:

Is abuse or negligent use of revision-deletion and oversight powers widespread on Wikipedia? As an Arbitrator, what steps would you take to redress the abuses that do happen?

We900 also requested that when these questions are asked on the candidates’ Q&A pages, it should be done without directly referencing him or me.

It’s only a little over a day before voting starts, so whoever’s going to ask these questions to the candidates should probably do so soon. EricBarbour suggested it ought to be done by either Andreas, Zoloft, or SB Johnny. Does anyone want to volunteer?

[drg55]

Right next to the 'PM' button is an 'EMAIL' button. It's magic.

Huh, I wasn't aware anyone ever used that feature. But if they do, I suppose it's worth trying, so thanks for the idea.

If you email you will be giving your email address.

[EricBarbour]

One general question you could hit all the admin candidates with, especially the current arbitrators:

Why do you continue to tolerate the presence of Oliver Keyes?

[Zoloft]

Right next to the 'PM' button is an 'EMAIL' button. It's magic.

Huh, I wasn't aware anyone ever used that feature. But if they do, I suppose it's worth trying, so thanks for the idea.

If you email you will be giving your email address.

Which is why there is a warning on the email form:

The return address for this message will be set to your e-mail address.

It is the only way you can use a board function to reach a member who isn't likely to log on soon.

[Captain Occam]

I don’t really care if Wer900 gets my e-mail address. I trust him to not post it in public, and even if he does, most of the people who I’d prefer not to have it already have it anyway. It’s not extremely difficult to find, if you know what places to look for it.

On a more important topic, there’s now less than 24 hours remaining before the voting starts. Is anyone here going to post any of these questions on the candidates’ Q&A pages? Having the WO community come up with questions for the candidates only accomplishes anything if the questions actually get asked.

[SB_Johnny]

It’s only a little over a day before voting starts, so whoever’s going to ask these questions to the candidates should probably do so soon. EricBarbour suggested it ought to be done by either Andreas, Zoloft, or SB Johnny. Does anyone want to volunteer?

Well, most of these seem to be in regards to personal beefs of one flavor or another, and I'll not get in the middle of those. Don't you have some socks you could sacrifice for your cause?

[Captain Occam]

Well, most of these seem to be in regards to personal beefs of one flavor or another, and I'll not get in the middle of those. Don't you have some socks you could sacrifice for your cause?

I’d rather avoid socking, since I’m hoping to be able to get ArbCom to lift my ban eventually. Besides, I doubt anybody would take a question for a candidate seriously if it’s asked by a sock.

I wasn’t really expecting every question in this thread to get asked, especially those that are more insults than actual questions, such as whether Jimbo is “a turd that won't flush”. But I think it would be valuable if you were to ask the questions that are challenging the candidates about specific things they’ve done and said, or the general questions about conduct and policy that Wer900 suggested.

[EricBarbour]

Questions for Guerillero:

Why are you running for Arbcom, given your paltry contributions during most of 2013? And the fact that you have written almost no content, failed at an Arbcom bid last year, and have spent your entire short Wikipedia career (really only 4 years, with large breaks during summers) chasing nothing except power and authority?

You're just another snotty college-boy patroller, every one of those who reached Arbcom proved to be bad at it. What makes you think you would not also fail?

[eppur si muove]

My suggestion:

What, if anything, is the legitimate role of criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review and is there anything they do that is unacceptable?

[Bottled_Spider]

I’d rather avoid socking, since I’m hoping to be able to get ArbCom to lift my ban eventually. Besides, I doubt anybody would take a question for a candidate seriously if it’s asked by a sock.

Simply create a sock, ask one of your questions and then - and this is the clever bit - append a disclaimer at the end to say something like "This question was not asked by a sock of Captain Occam. Honest". The prospective candidate, bound by that "Assume Good Faith" thing they all adhere to will have to accept it at face value, grin, and bear it. I honestly can't believe no-one's thought of that before.

I wasn’t really expecting every question in this thread to get asked, especially those that are more insults than actual questions, such as whether Jimbo is “a turd that won't flush”.

Yes, but maybe there's method in the madness of the troublemaker who suggested that. Obviously you wouldn't state it so boldly. More like "Has Jimbo outlived his usefulness?" or "Is it time for Jimbo to piss off and get someone decent in?". This level of politeness, combined with the direct honesty of the Jimbo question may very well result in the lifting of your ban, eventually. Maybe even by Jimbo himself. You never know.

[Captain Occam]

Simply create a sock, ask one of your questions and then - and this is the clever bit - append a disclaimer at the end to say something like "This question was not asked by a sock of Captain Occam. Honest". The prospective candidate, bound by that "Assume Good Faith" thing they all adhere to will have to accept it at face value, grin, and bear it. I honestly can't believe no-one's thought of that before.

I really doubt that would work. Whenever I’ve seen an account admit to being someone’s sock, the result has almost always been the same: the account gets blocked and all its edits get reverted.

Yes, but maybe there's method in the madness of the troublemaker who suggested that. Obviously you wouldn't state it so boldly. More like "Has Jimbo outlived his usefulness?" or "Is it time for Jimbo to piss off and get someone decent in?". This level of politeness, combined with the direct honesty of the Jimbo question may very well result in the lifting of your ban, eventually. Maybe even by Jimbo himself. You never know.

Has Jimbo ever lifted a ban imposed by ArbCom? I hope you realize how far-fetched this sounds.

I agree it could be worthwhile for someone else to ask a question like what you’re suggesting, though, as long as it’s worded in a way that doesn’t violate WP:CIVIL. I’d suggest asking something like, “Now that most of Jimbo’s former duties have been taken up by ArbCom and the community, do you think Jimbo’s reserve powers are still needed?”

Incidentally, the voting has started now, so the longer it takes for any of these questions to be posted somewhere that voters will see them, the less of an impact they’re going to have. I doubt most voters are looking at this Wikipediocracy thread.

Based on what editors are saying in their voter guides, it looks like most of them have figured out that electing David Gerard would be a terrible idea. On the other hand, the guides seem to suggest that Beeblebrox and Roger Davies are likely to win this year. If anyone wants voters to be aware of the downside of Beeblebrox and Roger Davies as candidates, that’s up to us.

[Triptych]

I doubt most voters are looking at this Wikipediocracy thread.

If any of them are, they should be made aware that Beeblebrox is the recipient of more courtesy deletions than any other administrator* atrocious statements we know occurred but common editors perusing his contributions may not see because arbs like Risker and Xeno wiped them out to spare him the embarrassment and of course to propel him forward a bit in his pursuit of project authority. His greatest hits include "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT," "STAY OFF MY TALKPAGE YOU LITTLE SHIT," his edit comment as he himself disappeared his infamous and longstanding official Wikipedia "Fuck Off" essay "ASSHOLES KEEP USING IT TO ATTACK ME, JUST FUCK OFF."

As well the best rationale he can give for his candidacy is that he has blocked 2500 editors. The problem is that 2475 of them were more valuable to the project than Beebs himself.

As to Roger Davies, he's a would-be returning arb that should be resoundingly downvoted premised on all the atrocious Arbcom activities this year, including Malleus checkuser abuse, Tea Party "block them all" absurdity, the incredible official determinations of "hate speech" at Private Manning case, and the cementing of the "some animals are more equal than others" principle in administrator Ironholds vs. common editor Kiefer Wolfowitz case. Like AGK, he goes in the "vote the bums out" grouping.

*That we know of.

[Bottled_Spider]

Simply create a sock, ask one of your questions and then - and this is the clever bit - append a disclaimer at the end to say something like "This question was not asked by a sock of Captain Occam. Honest". The prospective candidate, bound by that "Assume Good Faith" thing they all adhere to will have to accept it at face value, grin, and bear it. I honestly can't believe no-one's thought of that before.

I really doubt that would work. Whenever I’ve seen an account admit to being someone’s sock, the result has almost always been the same: the account gets blocked and all its edits get reverted.

Yes, that's undoubtedly true. The trick, in that situation, is to be economical with the truth (i.e. fib). So to sum up, the timetable would be (a) create sock, (b) politely make enquiries regarding Jimbo's resemblance to faecal matter, (c) Append disclaimer and (d) Don't, for the love of God, admit that you're the Cap'n, because if you do the sock account gets blocked and all its edits get reverted, etc.

Yes, but maybe there's method in the madness of the troublemaker who suggested that. Obviously you wouldn't state it so boldly. More like "Has Jimbo outlived his usefulness?" or "Is it time for Jimbo to piss off and get someone decent in?". This level of politeness, combined with the direct honesty of the Jimbo question may very well result in the lifting of your ban, eventually. Maybe even by Jimbo himself. You never know.

Has Jimbo ever lifted a ban imposed by ArbCom? I hope you realize how far-fetched this sounds.

When I originally wrote it I didn't, but now I realise it is. You can probably imagine how embarrassed I feel.

I agree it could be worthwhile for someone else to ask a question like what you’re suggesting, though, as long as it’s worded in a way that doesn’t violate WP:CIVIL. I’d suggest asking something like, “Now that most of Jimbo’s former duties have been taken up by ArbCom and the community, do you think Jimbo’s reserve powers are still needed?”

To be honest, Cap, that sounds a bit rude, actually. A bit disrespectful, if you catch my drift.

I doubt most voters are looking at this Wikipediocracy thread.

Maybe I'm naive, but I always like to imagine that they are. Hi, Wikipedians! Vote for Gerard, for Chrissakes! Hasten the day, etc.!

[m0riarty]

How about something along the lines of whether they think it is sustainable that IRC is promoted on wikipedia in an official way as a source of help for new users, but is at the same time considered unofficial and not subject to the same accountability and open procedures.

[SB_Johnny]

Maybe a good one would be: "Are you conversant in legalistic latin?"

After all, if NYB really does retire next year, they're gonna need somebody to keep things classy!

[Randy from Boise]

My suggestion:

What, if anything, is the legitimate role of criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review and is there anything they do that is unacceptable?

That would have been a GREAT question.

Clip and save for next year.

RfB

[Zoloft]

Ask Newyorkbrad if he has a minatory wand.

Trust me on this one.

[Newyorkbrad]

Ask Newyorkbrad if he has a minatory wand.

Trust me on this one.

I wiggle my right forefinger in your general direction.

[TungstenCarbide]

Ask Newyorkbrad if he has a minatory wand.

Trust me on this one.

I wiggle my right forefinger in your general direction.

do you ever say anything that matters , NYB?

You come here and hobnob and rub shoulders but never say anything substantial. That tells me you are more interested in social manipulation than communicating.

[Zoloft]

Ask Newyorkbrad if he has a minatory wand.

Trust me on this one.

I wiggle my right forefinger in your general direction.

do you ever say anything that matters , NYB?

You come here and hobnob and rub shoulders but never say anything substantial. That tells me you are more interested in social manipulation than communicating.

Actually Newyorkbrad came up with the very obscure response I was looking for. It's a bit of a secret handshake.

[Captain Occam]

My suggestion:

What, if anything, is the legitimate role of criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review and is there anything they do that is unacceptable?

That would have been a GREAT question.

Clip and save for next year.

RfB

Is it no longer possible to ask questions on the candidates' Q&A pages now that voting has opened? Obviously the answers can't influence people who've voted already, but most of the people who'll be voting probably haven't done so yet.

[Mason]

Is it no longer possible to ask questions on the candidates' Q&A pages now that voting has opened? Obviously the answers can't influence people who've voted already, but most of the people who'll be voting probably haven't done so yet.

No reason you couldn't ask now. (Well, not you, but someone not blocked, like Mr. from Boise.) Probably half the people who are going to vote have already done so, but the question pages aren't locked or anything.

[Bottled_Spider]

Ask Newyorkbrad if he has a minatory wand.

Trust me on this one.

I wiggle my right forefinger in your general direction.

do you ever say anything that matters , NYB?

You come here and hobnob and rub shoulders but never say anything substantial. That tells me you are more interested in social manipulation than communicating.

Actually Newyorkbrad came up with the very obscure response I was looking for. It's a bit of a secret handshake.

If slightly obscene, should one possess a "nudge-nudge-wink-wink"-style sense of humour. <Shivers>

[Randy from Boise]

My suggestion:

What, if anything, is the legitimate role of criticism sites such as Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review and is there anything they do that is unacceptable?

That would have been a GREAT question.

Clip and save for next year.

RfB

Is it no longer possible to ask questions on the candidates' Q&A pages now that voting has opened? Obviously the answers can't influence people who've voted already, but most of the people who'll be voting probably haven't done so yet.

Nothing to stop you from asking, but unless they're political dunces, they're done answering.

Hmmmmmmm.

I guess you're right, ha ha! Ask away!


RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Alright, I just asked it of all candidates. Here's the form of phrasing I used:

Q=Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?

|A=

I'm trying to make it easy for people who really hate the site to go off, which is the key information from my perspective.


RfB

[Captain Occam]

No reason you couldn't ask now. (Well, not you, but someone not blocked, like Mr. from Boise.) Probably half the people who are going to vote have already done so, but the question pages aren't locked or anything.

I doubt half of them have voted yet. According to the log, there are fewer than 100 votes so far, and last year around 800 people voted. So unless the number of voters massively drops this year, less than one-eight of the people who are going to vote have done so yet.

Alright, I just asked it of all candidates. Here's the form of phrasing I used:

Q=Sorry that this comes so late in the game. What is your opinion of the website Wikipediocracy? Does that site have value to Wikipedia or is it an unmitigated blight? If it is the latter, what do you propose that Wikipedia do about it? To what extent (if any) do you feel that abusive actions by self-identified Wikipedians on that site are actionable by ArbCom?

|A=

I'm trying to make it easy for people who really hate the site to go off, which is the key information from my perspective.


RfB

Thanks, I agree the answer to this’ll be very useful to know.

Are there any other questions I and others have suggested in this thread that you think are worth asking (with altered wording, if you think that should be changed)?

[Triptych]

Alright, I just asked it of all candidates.

The "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST" would-be arbitrator says now in his questions that we at Wikipediocracy are immature malcontents, that the site is a failure that is best ignored, and that our community leaders were rightfully banned for petty and inexcusable behavior. The centerpiece of Beebs' campaign is that he blocked 2500 Wikipedia editors. Beeblebrox 2013!

[EricBarbour]

The "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST" would-be arbitrator says now in his questions that we at Wikipediocracy are immature malcontents, that the site is a failure that is best ignored, and that our community leaders were rightfully banned for petty and inexcusable behavior. The centerpiece of Beebs' campaign is that he blocked 2500 Wikipedia editors. Beeblebrox 2013!

Not exactly, although he did bury his real sentiments in his answer. Mark my words, he is a very typical "evil" patroller, and they all tend to share his opinions of Wikipedia criticism generally. Small-time videogame bullies really should NOT have positions of authority, anywhere, partly because of this "us vs. them" mentality.

That "they're all banned users" claim about WO is such a load of shit, and yet they can't stop spewing it over and over.

And "awash in a see of vitriol and personal grudges" should be "awash in a SEA of vitriol and personal grudges", you dumb bastard.

[Mancunium]

Alright, I just asked it of all candidates.

The "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST" would-be arbitrator says now in his questions that we at Wikipediocracy are immature malcontents, that the site is a failure that is best ignored, and that our community leaders were rightfully banned for petty and inexcusable behavior. The centerpiece of Beebs' campaign is that he blocked 2500 Wikipedia editors. Beeblebrox 2013!

Links would have been useful to any outsider, like me, who is reading this thread. Wikipedia doesn't make it easy to search for this type of page: link

So long as a significant number of these critics are people who think that Wikipedia's utter failure is not only inevitable but desirable it is hard to trust the motivations of any criticism that comes from them. The occaisional bits of legitimate, helpful criticism that comes from them are awash in a see of vitriol and personal grudges. People who were rightfully banned for inexcusable behavior here are community leaders there. Doxing/outing of WP users is seen as acceptable and sometimes even encouraged.

Damn right doxing/outing is acceptable to me-- and I've never been banned from your "utter failure" of a website, which still hosts a slide show featuring defamatory libel, photos of my young daughter, and my correspondence with the late Elizabeth Taylor: link

Wikipedia is "awash in a see of vitriol and personal grudges", and the "inexcusable behavior" of the illiterate Beeblebrox and all the other scumbags on that site have made me their personal enemy for life.

[thekohser]

Why is the Questions for the candidates page devoid of any questions?

[Poetlister]

Actually Newyorkbrad came up with the very obscure response I was looking for. It's a bit of a secret handshake.

The reference is to a novel, "The League of Frightened Men", about a fictional detective called Nero Wolfe. The description of Mr. Wolfe's physical appearance might, to the less charitable, be thought to fit NYB too.

[Triptych]

would-be arbitrator says now in his questions

Not exactly, although he did bury his real sentiments in his answer.

He did say all that, though I left out his condescending "but it might be useful one day when they get their act together" stuff. I'll start being fair and balanced when Beebs rescinds 1250 of his 2500 blocks.

Links would have been useful to any outsider, like me, who is reading this thread. Wikipedia doesn't make it easy to search for this type of page: linkDamn right doxing/outing is acceptable to me-- and I've never been banned from your "utter failure" of a website, which still hosts a slide show featuring defamatory libel, photos of my young daughter, and my correspondence with the late Elizabeth Taylor: link

I don't like to turn my posts into link collections because it can take away from the conversation, however I recognize what you are saying, and yeah in the "wait, let me look at that" moments I should link stuff.

In the meantime, the Munsters grampa-like Mr. Gerard has categorized us as "justifiably-banned spammers, trolls and nutters" that should be ignored, and just when we were warming up to him: link.

EDIT: And Mancunium's comments about daughter and personal correspondence posting are reminder to turn up the pressure, insofar as we are able.

[TungstenCarbide]

Ask Newyorkbrad if he has a minatory wand.

Trust me on this one.

I wiggle my right forefinger in your general direction.

do you ever say anything that matters , NYB?

You come here and hobnob and rub shoulders but never say anything substantial. That tells me you are more interested in social manipulation than communicating.

Actually Newyorkbrad came up with the very obscure response I was looking for. It's a bit of a secret handshake.

good thing google is so smart

[EricBarbour]

Actually Newyorkbrad came up with the very obscure response I was looking for. It's a bit of a secret handshake.

The reference is to a novel, "The League of Frightened Men", about a fictional detective called Nero Wolfe. The description of Mr. Wolfe's physical appearance might, to the less charitable, be thought to fit NYB too.

Golly Batman, we were just talking about that the other day......